Weerd hits it right out of the park.
The forces aligned against gun ownership are of three flavors:
1. Fascists.
2. Criminals.
3. Idiots.
For those that disagree, go read Weerd's post and tell me what other possible choice there is.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thanks, bud!
That needed to come out!
You forgot communists.
By the way, I do not consider myself a fascist, a criminal nor an idiot (not a commie either); yet, I am a strong believer that we do need some very limited amount of gun control. I am not being cheeky either, not trying to bring up the joke about it meaning being able to hit your target.
If someone tried to end all gun control tomorrow, I think I would advocate for limited gun control in that I truly believe that a person who has been convicted of a violent felony, such as man slaughter or murder or forcible rape or armed robbery, should never be allowed to ever again legally carry a gun unless the conviction is overturned. Not an overturning on a technicality but on evidence that the person was guiltless. Of course, under my system of justice, if I were the grand poobah, violent felons would be hanged - so the point about them ever owning guns would be moot.
I also strongly believe that very mentally ill people, such as those with psychoses, or suffering from severe clinical depression and the like, should not be allowed to possess firearms for the duration of their mental illness.
Yes, even a pro 2nd Amendment and pro-gun rights and liberties guy, even a life member of the NRA and life member of the NYSR&PA, like me, believes in gun control to some extent. Want to talk about being an idiot, go ahead hand a loaded rifle to someone with severe paranoid delusions. Does my thinking that way make me evil? I would hope not.
In general though, there should be no gun control that in any way restricts a law abiding adult citizen or legal resident alien from keeping and bearing arms in this country.
All the best,
Glenn B
Yep, that is a good one!
Best 3 word description of the Democrat Party I've seen.
Stretch: unfortunately it also describes the repuhlicans, lose-lose situation over there.
Glenn B: I'm with you on that one. Heck I'd go a step further and say people should have to do a course on firearms safety and basic marksmanship before being allowed to carry in public(but not for ownership, do what you want in your own home).
Glenn B.,
I have to respectfully disagree.
If a criminal is so violent they cannot be trusted with one inanimate object, why the hell should they be trusted with a thousand others?
Baseball bats, butcher knives, pry bars, chainsaws, etc. All of them are deadly weapons in the hands of someone willing to use them as such. Yet there are no proscriptions on those items, just firearms.
If someone is such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted with [insert dangerous object here], then they shouldn't be out on the street, period. Ditto if they are so mentally disturbed.
By saying that firearms should be forbidden to the former criminal or the potentially mentally disturbed, you're giving the firearm special powers. You're elevating it above other dangerous items - and for what reason?
Someone killed with a baseball bat is just as dead as someone shot with a gun. Yet no one wants to make Sports Authority a prohibited area for felons.
And why do you think that "very mentally ill people, such as those with psychoses, or suffering from severe clinical depression and the like" should be able to hop behind the wheel of a car? Are they less of a threat behind the wheel of a three ton truck than holding your high powered rifle?
Magic thinking, that's what that is.
Giving the firearm greater power than it warrants, plain and simple. It's the person that misuses the firearm that's the issue, and if they cannot be trusted with a gun, then they cannot be trusted with a knife, an axe, or a toaster.
It's all or nothing, else you're giving the firearm more power than it deserves.
My $0.02...
I would add one more catagory: the emotionally damaged. Neurotics.
I'm sure we have all met them. They are people who are ruled by their emotions and can't follow a logical argument that contradicts their flakey emotions.
Well, I light of the Tragic Incident were THREE Students were KILLED and 2 sent to the Hospital up here in Northern Ohio, I think the Bradys and the CSGV and Peterson are RIGHT when they say Tougher Laws are Needed to Prevent Drivers from going the Wrong Way on the Interstate and......
Oh wait, that was a CAR ACCIDENT. Never Mind. Put the Candles away.
"Only criminals, dictators, and democrats fear armed citizens."
- Jeff Cooper
Go back and watch your classic Western themed Hollywood movies. Pre WWII all the way through the late '60s.
One plot theme that you'll find in more than a few, is the (sometimes the bad guy, sometimes the good guy who'd got a bum-rap), being released from the prison (not jail), and being handed his gun, gunbelt and other posessions at the prison gate.
Usually with the admonishment to go forth and stay out of trouble, etc., and in at least one I recall, being told that he'd paid his debt to society and was now a free man.
Not being into movie trivia, I can't remember the name of one of those movies, but they're out there.
I'd like to see a compendium of those scenes. Some talented researcher and editor could make a helluva showing from those.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
I normally just used the short form of:
1. Stupid
2. Evil
I would leave an age minimum on public carriage of firearms. Not because I don't know that there are some 16 year-olds who are a lot more mature than some 50 year-olds, but because it is a sign of maturity, coming-of-age, and of your duty to the people around you. You can still shoot other things or have them at home if you are younger (let's use 18 as an example), but carrying in public, concealed or open, shows that you accept the responsibilities that go with the privilege.
My $.02.
LittleRed1
"Baseball bats, butcher knives, pry bars, chainsaws, etc. All of them are deadly weapons in the hands of someone willing to use them as such. Yet there are no proscriptions on those items, just firearms.
If someone is such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted with [insert dangerous object here], then they shouldn't be out on the street, period. Ditto if they are so mentally disturbed.
By saying that firearms should be forbidden to the former criminal or the potentially mentally disturbed, you're giving the firearm special powers. You're elevating it above other dangerous items - and for what reason?
Someone killed with a baseball bat is just as dead as someone shot with a gun. Yet no one wants to make Sports Authority a prohibited area for felons."
Personally I'd extend it to "lethal weapons", not just guns. Although there are a few things that put guns head and shoulders above the rest(when was the last time you heard of a drive-by-beat-to-death?)
Btw I consider cars to be lethal weapons...
Mind you I'd prefer none of the violent criminals got released without having multiple true experts vouch that they're not a danger to society.
I dream of a day when the only people speaking out for gun control
are the doctors who treat repetitive-motion disorders. "Too much time at the range can lead to a variety of..." is the only flavor of anti-gun talk I want.
Post a Comment